Methods, systems and computer program products for chemical hazard evaluation

ABSTRACT

A method of assessing chemical products includes: receiving input data including identification of a chemical substance at a processing device; evaluating a regulatory impact of the chemical substance based on at least one of global regulation data, regional regulation data and jurisdiction-specific regulation data, and outputting a regulatory impact assessment; evaluating potential hazards posed by the chemical substance based on available data related to characteristics of the chemical substance by comparing the characteristics to a plurality of criteria including environmental criteria, toxicity criteria related to effects on human health, and physical criteria related to hazards encountered during material transportation and handling, and outputting a chemical hazard assessment; and generating a chemical assessment report indicating potential impact due to use of the chemical substance, the chemical assessment report indicating chemical assessment results that include the regulatory impact assessment and the chemical hazard assessment.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of an earlier filing date from U.S.Non-Provisional application Ser. No. 14/048,188 filed Oct. 8, 2013, theentire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Chemical hazard assessment is an important aspect in the evaluation ofexisting chemical products, and in the development of new chemicalproducts. For example, in the energy industry, various chemicalcomponents and substances are incorporated in products used for variousenergy industry activities, such as oilfield drilling, evaluation,completion, stimulation and production activities

A wide variety of chemical raw materials, intermediates and productsused in energy industry applications may have environmental and safetyimpacts that affect their use. Such chemicals should be evaluated toascertain potential environmental and health effects.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A method of assessing chemical products includes: receiving input dataincluding identification of a chemical substance at a processing device;evaluating a regulatory impact of the chemical substance based on atleast one of global regulation data, regional regulation data andjurisdiction-specific regulation data, and outputting a regulatoryimpact assessment; evaluating potential hazards posed by the chemicalsubstance based on available data related to characteristics of thechemical substance by comparing the characteristics to a plurality ofcriteria including environmental criteria, toxicity criteria related toeffects on human health, and physical criteria related to hazardsencountered during material transportation and handling, and outputtinga chemical hazard assessment; and generating a chemical assessmentreport indicating potential impact due to use of the chemical substance,the chemical assessment report indicating chemical assessment resultsthat include the regulatory impact assessment and the chemical hazardassessment.

A system for assessing chemical products includes: a data storage andretrieval device configured to at least one of receive and store sourcedata, the source data including available data related tocharacteristics of chemical substances and regulatory data including atleast one of global regulation data, regional regulation data andjurisdiction-specific regulation data; and a processing devicecommunicatively coupled to the data storage and retrieving device, theprocessing unit including an input component configured to receive inputdata including identification of a chemical substance. The processingdevice is configured to perform: evaluating a regulatory impact of thechemical substance based on the regulatory data, and outputting aregulatory impact assessment; evaluating potential hazards posed by thechemical substance based on the available data by comparing thecharacteristics to a plurality of criteria including environmentalcriteria, toxicity criteria related to effects on human health, andphysical criteria related to hazards encountered during materialtransportation and handling, and outputting a chemical hazardassessment; and generating a chemical assessment report indicatingpotential impact due to use of the chemical substance, the chemicalassessment report indicating chemical assessment results that includethe regulatory impact assessment and the chemical hazard assessment.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The following descriptions should not be considered limiting in any way.With reference to the accompanying drawings, like elements are numberedalike:

FIG. 1 depicts an embodiment of a well logging, production and/ordrilling system;

FIG. 2 depicts an embodiment of a data processing and chemicalassessment system;

FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a method ofassessing the potential impact of one or more chemical substances orproducts;

FIG. 4 depicts a portion of an exemplary computer program for receivinginput data, performing the method and generating a chemical assessmentresult;

FIGS. 5, 5-1 and 5-2 collectively referred to as FIG. 5, depict aregulatory impact assessment portion of a computer program forperforming the method of FIG. 3;

FIG. 6 depicts a decision tree illustrating an exemplary process ofperforming the regulatory impact assessment;

FIGS. 7 and 7-1, collectively referred to as FIG. 7, depict a pre-screenprediction portion of a computer program for performing the method ofFIG. 3;

FIGS. 8 and 8-1, collectively referred to as FIG. 8, depict a chemicalhazard evaluation portion of a computer program for performing themethod of FIG. 3;

FIG. 9 displays exemplary environmental criteria used in performing thechemical hazard evaluation of FIG. 8;

FIGS. 10A and 10A-1, and FIGS. 10B, 10B-1 and 10B-2, collectivelyreferred to as FIG. 10, display exemplary toxicity criteria used inperforming the chemical hazard evaluation of FIG. 8;

FIG. 11 displays exemplary physical hazard criteria used in performingthe chemical hazard evaluation of FIG. 8;

FIG. 12 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a method forevaluating input data gaps;

FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary chemical assessment result;

FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary chemical assessment result; and

FIG. 15 illustrates a comparison of the chemical assessment results ofFIGS. 13 and 14.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Systems and methods are provided for evaluating chemical substances suchas compounds, components and/or products, and generating chemicalevaluation summaries, reports, scores or other outputs. Exemplarychemical substances include chemicals, constituents and products used inthe oil and gas industry, such as components of fluids used fordrilling, evaluation, completion, stimulation (e.g., hydraulicfracturing), production, transmission and refining of hydrocarbons(e.g., oil and natural gas). As described herein, a “chemical substance”collectively refers to any combination of one or more substances,components and products. Substances include, e.g., chemical constituentssuch as chemical elements and/or compounds and combinations thereof,components of chemical products include fluids or substances used tomanufacture a product, and products include any manufactured materialthan can be used in energy industry applications.

The systems and methods provide an integrated tool for assessing theintrinsic properties of new and existing chemical substances andproducts and the potential impact such products will have on humanhealth and the environment. The systems and methods also provide anexcellent understanding of, and means to communicate, the existing orpotential level of worldwide regulatory burden a product may present.

An embodiment of a processing device is configured to execute analgorithm or workflow that receives data for one or more chemicalsubstances from various sources, and generates an assessment of achemical substance based on criteria including environmental impactcriteria, a regulatory impact assessment and chemical hazard criteria.The processing device is configured to generate an assessment output orresult such as a chemical assessment report that provides informationregarding potential impacts, including environmental and regulatoryimpacts. In one embodiment, one or more scores or other numerical valuesare provided to communicate relative levels of various potential impactsassociated with use of the chemical substance or substances.

Embodiments of methods include evaluating a chemical substance againstvarious evaluation criteria and providing a chemical assessment result(e.g., a report and/or score) that indicates potential impacts due touse of the chemical substance. An embodiment of a method is a ChemicalEvaluation Process Review (CEPR) which includes evaluating a chemicalsubstance against criteria, including environmental impact,toxicological impact, physical impact and regulatory impact. Thechemical substance is evaluated using these criteria to generate achemical assessment result including at least a hazard summary and/orscore, and a regulatory impact summary and/or score. For example, areport or other result includes a hazard summary that includes a scoreor other quantitative result, and a regulatory impact summary thatincludes a qualitative result (e.g., identification of applicableregulations and their effect on the use of the chemical substance) andmay also include a quantitative result (e.g., regulatory score based onthe number of identified regulations).

In one embodiment, the device and method are configured to output achemical substance assessment result. Results from one or moreindividual chemical substance assessments can be stored in a database orother storage. Previously generated results from individual chemicalsubstance assessments may be combined to generate accumulated resultsfor chemical products comprising multiple substances.

FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a well logging,exploration, production and/or drilling system 10 for which chemicalsubstances or products may be employed. The system 10 includes atoolstring or borehole string 12 that is shown disposed in a borehole 14that penetrates at least one earth formation 16 during a drilling, welllogging and/or hydrocarbon production operation. In one embodiment, thesystem 10 includes a bottomhole assembly (BHA) 18. The BHA 18, or otherportion of the borehole string 12, includes a tool 20 configured toperform one of various functions. A control device 22 (e.g., a surfacecontrol and/or processing unit) is coupled to the string 12, and a fluidstorage device 24 (e.g., tank or mud pit) is configured to provide aborehole fluid to the string 12 and/or borehole. For example, the tool20 includes a drilling assembly and a drilling fluid such as drillingmud is circulated in the borehole during drilling. For stimulationoperations the borehole fluid includes fracturing fluid that is forceddownhole to stimulate production of hydrocarbons. Other types of fluidscould be various gases or liquids for facilitating hydrocarbonproduction, and water management. Such fluids include various chemicalconstituents that may be evaluated using the methods described herein.

Referring to FIG. 2, an embodiment of a data processing and chemicalassessment system 30 is shown. The system 30 includes a processingdevice or unit 32 such as a computer (e.g., desktop or laptop), whichmay be connected to a host 34. The processing unit 32 and the host 34are not limited to the configurations described herein, and may includeany suitable device or network including various processors, memory andcommunications devices.

In one embodiment, the host 34 includes a processor, memory,input/output devices and other components for execution of a computerprogram or algorithm to perform the methods described herein. The host34 is connected to various data storage locations, which may be internalor external to the host 34. For example, the host 34 is connected todatabases which store lists, libraries or other data structures thatstore information used to assess chemical substances as describedherein. Exemplary databases include a “Highly Discouraged Substances”list database 36 and a regulatory database 38. The host 34 may also beconnected to a network such as the Internet 40 to allow the host 34 toretrieve information from various sources, such as regulatory sources 42and chemical industry or scientific sources 44. In one embodiment, thesystem 30 includes a storage location or device, such as a chemicalassessment database 46, to store results of individual chemicalsubstance and multiple substance product assessments.

The methods described herein can be performed or executed on the clientcomputer, the host or any other processing unit or combination ofprocessing units. In one embodiment, the method is performed exclusivelyby a processor using, e.g., input data identifying one or more chemicalsubstances, constituents or products. In other embodiments, the methodis performed in conjunction with a user. For example, the processor mayprovide a platform for data input, provide access to chemical substancedata, and calculate regulatory and/or hazard scores. A user may provideother components of the method, such as data selection, assessmentdescriptions or summaries and evaluation of data quality.

The system 30 is configured to perform a chemical assessment orevaluation method (e.g., Chemical Evaluation Process Review (CEPR)). Themethod uses global data sources to evaluate chemical substances andproducts through a practical, transparent and quantitative process,based upon their potential physical, health and environmental impacts.The process also includes a review of global regulatory requirements(e.g., chemical prescreening, transportation, handling and application)and provides an assessment of the potential regulatory impact of achemical substance or product. The method can be performed for achemical substance or combinations of substances, a chemicalconstituent, a chemical product (e.g., including multiple substances orconstituents) or a fluid system composed of multiple products(collectively referred to herein as a “chemical substance”).

In one embodiment, the method provides a relative numerical hazardranking score for chemical substances, and also provides a qualitativeregulatory impact assessment including, e.g., a regulatory impact resultsuch as a numerical indicator based on a number of applicableregulations and/or a list of applicable regulations. For example, theprocess identifies global and geomarket-specific regulatory obligationsassociated with usage of a chemical substance. In addition, the methodmay include a pre-screen prediction process for the chemical substance,by which characteristics of the chemical substance are compared to apre-existing chemical evaluation standard. For example, the pre-screenprocess estimates the likelihood that a product or component, includingthe chemical substance, can be used in areas or countries which haveadopted all or portions of the Oslo-Paris Convention (OSPAR) HarmonizedMandatory Pre-screening Scheme criteria.

One embodiment of a chemical assessment method includes one or more offour assessment elements: Highly Discouraged Substances, RegulatoryImpact Assessment, Pre-Screen Prediction, and Chemical HazardEvaluation. As described in embodiments herein, all four of theseassessment elements are utilized in providing an overall chemicalassessment. However, in some embodiments, the method includes one ormore of the assessment elements.

The “Highly Discouraged Substances” assessment elements compares thechemical substance to widely known and well-studied substances whichhave been determined, by the international scientific community, topersist in the environment, bioaccumulate through the food chain, andpose a risk of causing serious adverse effects to human health and theenvironment. As a result, the assessment may highly discourage theintentional addition of any of these substances into chemical products.

The “Regulatory Impact Assessment” element provides an understanding ofpotentially applicable regulations and their impact for chemicalsubstances and/or products being developed or used. As described herein“regulatory impact” refers to any effects on, or restrictions to, theuse of chemical substances or products due to regulations imposed bygovernmental authorities or other entities having regulatory authority.Not intended to replace or supersede laws and regulations that are inforce, this assessment is especially useful during research anddevelopment to understand potential regulatory implications beforereleasing a chemical product to market. This assessment identifiesglobal, regional and/or country-specific or jurisdiction-specificregulations that may apply to the chemical substance and would thus havea regulatory impact, i.e., an impact on the use of such a substance incorresponding jurisdictions.

The regulatory impact assessment may be used to create regulatoryassessment results including text, lists, tables or other datastructures that identifies potential regulatory challenges. The datastructure may include identification of regulatory bodies, and/or thenumber and/or list of applicable regulations associated with theregulatory impact. The actual number and type of regulations are notlimited to the embodiments described herein

Exemplary sources that can be used in determining the potential level ofglobally or regionally applicable regulatory control and impact includeMaterial Safety Data Sheets/Safety Data Sheets (MSDS/SDS), and reportsin other regulations for chemical products. The presence of certainsubstances in a product may trigger specific regulatory obligations suchas reporting or record keeping. Regulatory impacts could range fromCommunity Right-To-Know notifications through MSDS/SDS statements toactual restrictions or bans on product use within a given jurisdiction.

In one embodiment, searches of global, national, regional and stateregulatory lists performed during this assessment generate qualitativeinformation that can be used to develop or modify products with fewerhazards, while also reducing the regulatory obligations associated withmore hazardous products. In this way, developing and offering productswith fewer hazards can reduce or minimize potential marketing barriersand concerns from a variety of stakeholders. This can be an especiallypowerful tool to demonstrate the success of continuous productimprovement. For example, as MSDS/SDSs are an effective means tocommunicate hazard information to a wide audience, the fact that fewerand fewer hazards must be identified in successive MSDS/SDSs for a givenproduct is proof of advancements in the chemical product formulation anddevelopment process. In this way, developing and offering products withfewer hazards can communicate to a wide variety of stakeholders theindustry's commitment to developing less hazardous products.

The “Pre-screen Prediction” is also a useful element of the chemicalassessment method. The pre-screen prediction element evaluates thechemical substance against selected pre-screen criteria frompre-existing standards. For example, the Oslo-Paris Convention (OSPAR)is the mechanism by which the European Community and 15 governments ofthe western coasts and catchments of Europe protect the marineenvironment of the North Sea. The OSPAR Harmonised Mandatory ControlScheme (HMCS) comprises a Harmonised Pre-screening scheme (OSPARPre-screen). The regulatory purpose of the OSPAR Pre-screen is to allowauthorities in the North Sea to identify and regulate hazardous andnon-hazardous substances in offshore chemicals, and to substitute andphase out those substances identified as hazardous. Although thePre-screen was originally designed and intended for offshore chemicalusage in the North Sea, several other countries and jurisdictions haveadopted (in whole or in part) the Pre-screen scheme as a means toevaluate and regulate chemicals for both onshore and offshore use. As aresult, chemical product usage in a number of markets is becomingincreasingly dependent on whether a chemical substance or product willmeet criteria set forth in the OSPAR Pre-screen scheme.

The pre-screen prediction element is used to evaluate available dataagainst selected criteria from a pre-screen scheme or standard. Forexample, the pre-screen prediction evaluates eco-toxicity data againstselected OSPAR Pre-Screen scheme criteria and provide a preliminaryassessment of the likelihood that a chemical substance and/or productwould be accepted for use or would require substitution. The pre-screenelement may also compare the chemical substance to a list of substances,maintained by OSPAR, which are considered to pose little to no risk tothe environment (PLONOR) and are automatically eligible for use.

A formal submittal of eco-toxicity data to OSPAR, in the form of aHarmonised Offshore Chemical Notification Format (HOCNF) document, forthe purpose of regulatory review and approval requires studies beconducted using a specific set of test protocols with data requirementswhich require the use of certain marine organisms, and refer to threekey endpoints: aerobic biodegradation, bioaccumulation and aquatictoxicity. A tremendous body of environmental toxicity data has beencollected from alternate freshwater and marine species which may alsohave been conducted using studies that follow alternate but standardizedprotocols such as Environment Canada, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA), and Organization of Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD).

This element of the chemical assessment method compares the chemicalsubstance and/or product to Pre-Screen Prediction criteria (examples ofwhich are shown in FIG. 6) to determine whether the product has beenassessed and, if so, whether it has “passed” or “failed”. If data forthe chemical substance or product, such as those required for a formalHOCNF submittal, are not available, the assessment enables a user toevaluate alternate, reliable, relevant, and adequate data for thesubstance or product against the Pre-Screen Prediction criteria andprovide a qualitative, preliminary prediction of whether the chemicalproduct might pass or fail.

The “Chemical Hazard Evaluation” element identifies one or morecategories of hazards that are quantitatively assessed. For example,this evaluation includes assessment of the chemical substance and/orproduct in environmental, toxicological and physical hazard categories.Although embodiments described herein utilize all three of thesecategories, fewer categories may be used, or other combinations of thesecategories and/or other categories could be employed.

A numerical result or score may be provided as an output of the chemicalhazard evaluation element. The score may be based on various hazardcharacteristics. In one embodiment, the score is an accumulated orcombined score based on a plurality of chemical substances orconstituents. For example, a combined score is generated for a chemicalproduct including a plurality of substances (i.e., constituents), and/orfor a material or fluid system that includes multiple substances and/orproducts (i.e., constituents). The combined score may be generated byweighting the score for each constituent or product based on itsproportion of the product and/or system. For example, the fluid systemor product is assigned a score based on the score for each constituentthat is weighted based on its percentage (e.g., by mass, weight orvolume) within the system. This allows for calculating a total hazardousimpact for a fluid product or system and comparisons of systems, or atotal hazardous impact for a wellsite, lift of well, location orfacility.

The chemical hazard assessment element, in one embodiment, includes oneor more hazard categories and/or criteria that are taken frompre-existing evaluation standards. For example, the chemical hazardelement incorporates categories and/or criteria for evaluating chemicalhazards from, or includes categories and/or criteria based on orpatterned after, the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System ofClassification and Labeling (GHS), the USEPA Design for the Environment(DfE), and others. The chemical hazard element may use categories and/orcriteria based on any number of standards, e.g., using criteria from theGHS standard and any number of other standards. In one embodiment,suitable categories and/or criteria are selected from such standardsthat would have applicability to the energy industry.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart depicting an exemplary method 50 of assessing achemical product, compound, substance, constituent or component,collectively referred to herein as a “chemical substance.” The method 50may be performed on any suitable processor, processing device and/ornetwork, such as the processing system 30 or components thereof. Themethod 50 includes one or more stages 51-57. In one embodiment, themethod 50 includes the execution of all of stages 51-57 in the orderdescribed. However, certain stages may be omitted, stages may be added,or the order of the stages changed.

An example of a chemical assessment program is shown in FIGS. 4-11,which provides a means to store assessment data (e.g., substanceinformation such as Highly Discourage substance list, and regulatoryinformation) and instructions for assessment, as well as locations ofdata used for assessment. In this example, the program provides aworkbook including a number of spreadsheets that are used to inputinformation, generate assessment results and provide assessment outputssuch as reports or summaries. The workbook in this example includesspecific tabs for each component of the evaluation process, and scoringguidelines for each hazard endpoint. The spreadsheet may be controlledand managed by any suitable processing device. Assessment results forspecific chemical substances or combinations may be stored as workbookand/or document files for later analysis and/or retrieval.

In one embodiment, for assessment of chemical products that havemultiple constituents, a product level workbook may be compiled based onassessments of the individual constituents. For example, a product levelworkbook includes scores and data compiled for each substance in aproduct. An appropriate storage (database or library) stores bothconstituent workbooks and product level workbooks.

In the first stage 51, a processing device receives a request forassessment of a chemical substance. The processing device determines ifthe substance has previously been assessed and an assessment result hasbeen generated. For example, the client processor searches or requestsdata from the chemical assessment database 46. If an assessment resultexists, the assessment result may be output to a user or other location,and/or used to generate an accumulated assessment output if the chemicalsubstance is a constituent of product. If the assessment result does notexist, the method 50 proceeds to stage 52 and performs the chemicalassessment.

In the second stage 52, data related to the chemical substance isretrieved. Such data includes information regarding intrinsic hazardcharacteristics of the chemical substance, and is taken from varioussources, such as regulatory sources and industry or scientific sources.Exemplary sources include regulatory bodies that maintain informationregarding different substances, collections of reports such as MSDS/SDSdatabases, and collections of studies relating to the chemical substance(e.g., internal studies, studies performed by product manufacturers andstudies performed by scientific bodies). Other useful sources ofinformation should provide data that are reliable, relevant, andadequate for the hazard category being assessed.

In the third stage 53, the chemical substance is compared to a list orother data structure that identifies a number of substances that shouldbe avoided if possible, and are highly discouraged from beingintentionally added or formulated into any chemical product, at anyconcentration. Such substances are referred to as “Highly DiscouragedSubstances.”

The list may include any number of substances that are known to posesignificant risks to the environment or human health. In one embodiment,the list includes substances which pose known, generally internationallyagreed-to, significantly adverse effects to human health, and theenvironment. The list may be taken from a pre-existing source, such as aregulatory or scientific source. The list may also be constructed fromcombinations of sources and is subject to modification as new databecomes available.

For example, several well-characterized and prevalent pollutants, suchas PCBs, dioxins, benzo[a]pyrene, halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons andothers have Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) characteristicswhich pose a significant risk of adverse effects to human health and theenvironment. Challenges in controlling these Persistent OrganicPollutants (POPs) result from their ability to transfer rather easilybetween air, water, and land, and to travel long distances. Severalstudies have shown that many of these substances have bioaccumulatedthroughout the global food chain, leading to body burdens far in excessof levels found in the environment. With frequent exposure over time,the amount present in an organism's tissues can build up and cause toxiceffects. In humans, demonstrated adverse effects include nervous systemabnormalities, reproductive and developmental problems, cancer, andgenetic impacts. Young children and developing fetuses may be atespecially high risk.

Exemplary Highly Discouraged substances are listed in the spreadsheet ofFIG. 4. As shown, the Highly Discouraged list includes substancesidentified by the United Nations Environment Programme and the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

If the chemical substance is found in the Highly Discouraged Substanceslist, the appropriate output generated by the method indicates as suchand may also provide guidelines for use, substitution, and/or exclusionof the substance in the chemical product.

In the fourth stage 54, the chemical substance is evaluated forpotential regulatory impact, i.e., a regulatory impact assessment isperformed. The regulatory impact assessment component provides anunderstanding of potentially applicable regulations and their impact forconstituents and products being developed or used. Applicableregulations and/or regulatory bodies are identified, and theirrespective effects and restrictions on the chemical products areassessed to determine the regulatory impact that would effect.

The regulatory impact could range from the requirement to notify throughMSDS/SDS statements to actual restrictions or bans on use. Thisassessment is designed to provide a view of hazardous materialregulations that may apply to a substance or product. Regulationsincluded in this section may be global, regional, and/or country- orjurisdiction-specific in scope. Thus, the regulatory impact may be basedon at least one of global regulations, regional regulations andjurisdiction-specific regulations. Being present on a substance list orlists maintained by a regulatory body indicates potential regulatoryobligations that may need to be met before a product can be developedfor commercialization in a corresponding market.

Various sources of regulations, such as databases or libraries ofregulations and/or regulatory bodies, are consulted to determine whetherthe chemical substance would be subject to any regulations and may alsobe analyzed to determine what the potential impact of applicableregulations would be. The “impact” is considered to include the type andextent of restrictions on use of the chemical substance in variousapplications, such as energy industry applications. The impact may alsoinclude the geographic impact or restrictions on types of environmentsor population areas. Accordingly, this stage may include generating anoutput that provides qualitative information regarding regulatory impact(e.g., identifying applicable regulations and their restrictions onuse). In addition, the number and/or list of applicable regulations maybe generated based on the assessed impact.

For example, the output generated by this assessment may include adescription of the impact of applicable regulations, such asrestrictions on transportation, required MSDS warnings, targeting forreplacement, risk management procedure, monitoring, and reporting. Inaddition to the description of existing regulations, the output mayindicate whether future regulations are contemplated, and may also offerinformation regarding potential chemical substances as substitutions.

In one embodiment, the number and/or list of applicable regulations isincluded in the output, based on the number of regulatory lists that asubstance is present on.

FIG. 5 illustrates a spreadsheet utilized in the Regulatory ImpactAssessment element, which includes a list of regulations and/orregulatory authorities. Each of these regulations are consulted (e.g., aregulatory database is searched for the chemical product) to determinewhich, if any, of the regulations apply to the substance, product orcomponent. The presence or absence of the substance on each list isnotated in the spreadsheet. In addition, the total number of applicableregulatory lists, for each substance, is tabulated and may be includedin the output. Such lists may include global regulations, regionalregulations and/or country- or jurisdictional regulations. The list ofregulations evaluated in this example include:

Globally Applicable Regulatory Lists

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—Carcinogens: The IARCis part of the World Health Organization, and conducts research onmechanisms of carcinogenesis and identifies known or suspected humancarcinogens. In general recognized carcinogens are targets forreplacement by consumers and may have regulatory obligations associatedwith their use.

UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Banned Chemicals: The UN GeneralAssembly Resolution 37/137 from 1982 initiated the List of Productswhose Consumption and/or Sale have been Banned, Withdrawn, SeverelyRestricted, or Not Approved by Governments. This list is published bythe UNEP and describes regulatory actions taken.

Eastern Hemisphere (Regional and Country/Jurisdiction Specific)Regulatory Lists

EUROPA Annex 13 Category 1 Endocrine Disruptors: The European CommissionDG ENV commissioned conducted a study on endocrine disruption, with afocus on man-made chemicals. The resulting report, “Towards theestablishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation oftheir role in endocrine disruption—preparation of a candidate list ofsubstances as a basis for priority setting,” published in November 2000,summarized the results of the study, and provided a list of 146substances listed with endocrine disruption classifications.

European Chemicals Agency Substances of Very High Concern: The EuropeanChemicals Agency (ECHA) list of substances of very high concern includessubstances which are: Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or toxic to Reproduction(CMR) classified in category 1 or 2, Persistent, Bioaccumulative andToxic (PBT) or very Persistent and very Bioaccumulative (vPvB) accordingto the criteria in Annex XIII of the EUs Registration, Evaluation,Authorization and Restrictions of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation, and/oridentified, on a case-by-case basis, from scientific evidence as causingprobable serious effects to humans or the environment of an equivalentlevel of concern as those above e.g. endocrine disrupters.

European Commission Priority Substances & Certain Other Pollutants: Thiscommission was created in accordance with Annex II of the Directive2008/105/EC. The list includes comprises 41 substances or substancegroups (33 priority substances and 8 certain other pollutants. Prioritysubstances or substance groups include polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),biocides, and metals. Certain other pollutants are not included in thepriority substances list, and fall under the scope of Directive86/280/EEC.

OSPAR Chemicals for Priority Action: The List of Chemicals for PriorityAction contains 42 substances or groups of substances that have beenprioritized by OSPAR for monitoring and control of emissions to themarine environment. It is noted that assessment of regulatory impactusing this list may be performed as part of an assessment element thatis separate from the OSPAR Pre-screen assessment element discussed infurther detail below.

Australia Air Toxics Program—Priority Pollutants: The AustralianDepartment of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, andCommunities established a list of priority air toxics via the Report ofthe Technical Advisory Group on Prioritisation of Air Toxics for LivingCities Air Toxics Program. The list includes a variety of substancetypes, including metals, volatile organic compounds, and PAHs, that havecharacteristics that may be a hazard to human, plant or animal life.

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines: The Australian Government NationalHealth and Medical Research Council published the 2004 AustralianDrinking Water Guidelines to supply guidelines on safe drinking water.The list of potential hazardous agents in drinking water comprises PartV of the Guidelines, and identifies microbial, chemical, physical, andradiological agents.

Australia National Pollutant Inventory Guide to Reporting: The NationalPollutant Inventory (NPI) is a database describing air, land, and wateremissions of 93 substances from industrial facility and diffuse sources.The purpose of the NPI is to provide operators with a means ofestimating emissions and to determine whether emissions of NPIsubstances should be reported.

ERMA New Zealand Reassessment Priority List: The New ZealandEnvironmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) publishes thereassessment priority list. Listed substances are approved for use inNew Zealand, but are identified for reassessment because ERMA willconsider the adequacy of safety precautions and whether listedsubstances should remain approved for use.

Western Hemisphere (Regional and Country/Jurisdiction Specific)Regulatory Lists

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Marine Pollutant: As requiredby 49 CFR, Parts 100-180, the USDOT regulates the packaging, labeling,and transport of marine pollutants.

National Toxicology Program (NTP)—Carcinogens: The NTP, under the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, evaluates chemical agents ofpublic health concern. The NTP Report on Carcinogens identifies agents,substances, mixtures, and exposure circumstances that are determined tobe known or reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans by the NTP.

EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels: The SafeDrinking Water Act (Title 40, Ch. 1, Part 141) authorizes the USEPA toestablish national health-based standards for drinking water. The EPAenforces National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), standardsthat apply to contaminant levels in public water systems to limit thelevel of contaminants present in drinking water. Each contaminant isassociated with a Maximum Contaminant Level, the highest level of acontaminant that is allowed in drinking water. The presence of thesesubstances above threshold criteria will result in a range of regulatoryrequirements. The levels of these substances in certain energy industryproducts may be a concern, prompting substitution where possible.

EPA Clean Water Act Priority Pollutants: Priority Pollutants, listed inAppendix A, 40 CFR Part 423, are a set of substances regulated by theEPA and for which the EPA has published analytical test methods.Regulatory requirements and restrictions may be imposed in certainjurisdictions related to a chemical products use in the energy industry.

EPA Hazardous Air Pollutants: Clean Air Act Amendments published in 1990directed the EPA to establish standards for major sources of air toxicsand identified the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS). A range ofrequirements including emission controls may be imposed on facilitiesemitting these substances.

Hazardous Volatile Organic Chemicals: The USEPA and US GeologicalSociety (USGS) have identified up to 104 VOCs which have the potentialto adversely impact human health and the environment. These chemicalshave been identified based upon physical properties, cancer andnon-cancer hazard potential, toxicity to aquatic organisms, occurrencein indoor air, groundwater, surface water and drinking water sources,potential for atmospheric ozone depletion, and bioconcentration byaquatic organisms. Specifically these are referenced in the 2006 EPABuilding Assessment Survey and Evaluation Study, and the 1999 USGS OpenFile Report 99-182.

EPCRA Sec. 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances: Section 302 of theEmergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) establishes alist of Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) for which facilities mustreport storage, use, and release. In general, all facilities usingsubstances on the Section 302 list at concentrations above establishedthresholds may have reporting requirements and additional requirementsmay apply.

EPCRA Sec. 313 Toxic Chemicals: Environmental release data, includingwaste management and emissions, for chemicals and chemical categorieslisted under Section 313 of the EPCRA must be reported annually.

US DOT Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals: The US DOT HazardousMaterials Table (HMT) contains over 3600 substances and substancecategories which are associated with packaging regulations and shippingquantity limitations.

US FDA Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS) List: GRAS is an FDAdesignation that a chemical or substance, specifically when added tofood, is considered safe by experts. This designation is granted forsubstances generally recognized, through a consensus of opinion by FDAand other experts, as having been adequately shown through scientificprocedures or common experience in use, to be safe under the conditionsof their intended use (as a food additive).

Environment Canada—Acts & Regulations—Toxic Substances List—Schedule 1:The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA 1999, Part 5) authorizesthe Minister of Health and Minister of the Environment to manage toxicsubstances and to establish substance lists. Substances reported on theList of Toxic Substances were determined to be toxic based on risks thatthe substance poses to the environment or human health as described insection 64 of CEPA.

Environment Canada—Acts & Regulations—Priority Substance List: The CEPA1999, section 76, requires that the Minister of the Environment and theMinister of Health establish a Priority Substances List (PSL)identifying substances to be assessed to determine potential health orenvironmental risks.

Another exemplary source of regulatory impact information is the GHSstandard and Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation).For example, portions of these standards may be used to evaluate hazardsof the chemical substance. Example substances classified by the GHSscheme include those identified as including carcinogens, mutagens andreproductive toxins (CMRs). The following table is a summary ofharmonized (classified) hazard phrases or “H” phrases used in the GHSstandard to identify types of hazards associated with CMR substances:

GHS/CLP HAZARD PHRASES ASSOCIATED WITH CARCINOGEN, MUTAGEN, andREPRODUCTIVE TOXINS H340 May cause genetic defects H341 Suspected ofcausing Genetic Defects H350 May cause cancer H351 Suspected of causingcancer H360 May damage fertility or the unborn child H360 Suspected ofdamaging fertility or the unborn child

Each hazard phrase for all CMRs is clearly noted so that implicationsfor a specific level of hazard associated with a product can beaccurately considered.

Although the majority of lists are provided to identify potentialregulatory challenges, one or more of these lists may offer positiveattributes. For example, the GRAS list, described above, includessubstances that are generally recognized to be safe under the conditionsof their intended use (as a food additive). It is noted that, eventhough chemical products such as oilfield products include substancesfound on the GRAS list, this does not imply that the chemical substancesused in the manufacture of the chemical products are “food grade.”Essentially, this information can be used to convey the low level ofhazard posed by these substances.

In the fifth stage 55, the chemical product is assessed based onpre-screen criteria provided by a pre-existing chemical evaluationstandard, such as the OSPAR Pre-screen scheme criteria. This assessmentelement evaluates available toxicity, biodegradation, andbioaccumulation data against Pre-screen Prediction criteria and providesa preliminary assessment of the likelihood that products/substanceswould be accepted for use or would require substitution. (Exemplarycriteria are shown in FIG. 6) If the chemical substance or product hasalready been formally evaluated by OSPAR, the results of such anevaluation are acquired and presented as part of the assessment output.

This element of the assessment method acquires (or attempts to acquire)data for the chemical product to be used in the OSPAR Pre-ScreenPrediction. In one embodiment, the element assesses the product underall the Pre-Screen Prediction criteria. In one embodiment, the elementdoes not assess the product under all of the Pre-Screen Predictioncriteria, but may select a number of tests or requirements to determinewhether the product would likely meet Pre-Screen criteria.

In one embodiment, data from all or some of the following tests andprotocols are assessed to determine whether the product would likelymeet Pre-Screen criteria. Such tests and protocols include:

1. Aquatic Toxicity (with Acceptable Species and Test End-Point)

ISO/DIS 10253—Water quality—Marine algae growth inhibition test(Skeletonema costatum, Phaeodactylum tricornutum, 72 hr. EC50)

ISO TC 147/SC5/WG2—Toxicity to Invertebrates (Acartia tonsa, Mysidopsisbahia, 48 hr. LC50)

PARCOM Protocol 1995 Part B—Fish Acute Toxicity Test (Scophthalmusmaximus, Cyprinodon variegatus, 96 hr. LC50)

PARCOM Protocol 1995 Part A—Sediment Reworker Toxicity Test (Corophiumvolutator, Corophium sp., 10 day LC50).

2. Biodegradation

OECD 306—Biodegradability in Seawater

Marine Bodis test

OECD 301C—Ready Biodegradability: MITI test

OECD 301D—Ready Biodegradability: Closed bottle test

OECD 301E—Modified OECD Screening test

OECD 301F—Manometric Respirometry

OECD 310—Ready Biodegradability: Headspace test

Freshwater Bodis test (Note that data from OECD 306 and Marine Bodistest tests, if available, are preferred over data from the otherbiodegradability tests listed here).

3. Bioaccumulation

OECD 305—Bioconcentration: Flow-through Fish Test

ASTM E1022—Standard Guide for Conducting Bioconcentration Tests withFishes and Saltwater Bivalve Mollusks

OECD 107—Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water): Shake Flask Method

OECD 117—Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water): HPLC Method

(Note that data from bioconcentration studies, if available, arepreferred over data from the partition coefficient studies listed here)

If OSPAR acceptable data, such as those meeting requirements for aformal HOCNF submittal, are available for each component in a product,then the assessment is relatively straight forward, and each componentis assigned a Pass or Fail. The product is assigned a Pass if all of thecomponents receive a Pass, and the product is assigned a Fail if atleast one of the components receive a Fail. The scoring system is notlimited to this embodiment.

Substances found on the “OSPAR List of Substances/Preparations Used andDischarged Offshore which Are Considered to Pose Little or No Risk tothe Environment” (PLONOR list), may be designated as such in thissection. If all substances in a product are designated PLONOR, then theproduct is assigned a Pass.

If OSPAR acceptable data are not available, then the available relevantdata can be utilized, with professional judgment, to determine thepotential for the substance to pass an OSPAR screen. Similar to thehazard assessment process, allowances can be made for read-across data,professional judgment of data from alternate species and test methods,etc. In these cases, substances and products are assigned ProvisionalPass or Provisional Fail status.

In the event that neither OSPAR acceptable data, nor data from otherreliable sources, are available for a particular endpoint, a “Data Gap”should be assigned. A substance is then assigned a Fail if there are anydata gaps. It follows then, that a product will also be assigned a Failif it comprises one or more substances with data gaps.

An example of an OSPAR Pre-screen is shown in the decision treeillustrated in FIG. 6. The results can be presented in a workbookspreadsheet as shown in FIG. 7. The results of individual tests orprotocols are shown and a “substance results” value of pass, fail,provisional pass or provisional fail is provided for each substance orconstituent. A “product result” value (e.g., Pass or Fail) is providedbase on the results for the constituents, as described above.

In the sixth stage 56, the “Chemical Hazard Evaluation” element isperformed to evaluate a substance's intrinsic environmental,toxicological, and physical hazards and provide a quantitative scorebased on specific endpoints. As discussed above, the Chemical HazardEvaluation includes three hazard categories, each of which includesselected measurement endpoints that define the specific hazard beingevaluated.

In one embodiment, each hazard category includes sub-categories havingselected measurement endpoints that define the specific hazard beingevaluated. Numeric scores may be assigned to each endpoint, based on theseverity of the hazard posed by the product, e.g., patterned after theGHS standard. For example, the more hazardous a substance is withrespect to a certain endpoint, the higher the score, and vice versa.Exemplary hazard categories include an “environmental” category withmeasurement endpoints of Acute Aquatic Toxicity, Bioaccumulation andBiodegradation, a “toxicological” category with Acute MammalianToxicity, Carcinogenicity, Genetic Toxicity, Reproductive andDevelopmental Toxicity, and Eye/Skin Corrosive/Irritant endpoints, and a“physical” category with Explosive, Flammable, Oxidizer, and MetalCorrosive endpoints.

Examples of scoring criteria for each endpoint in these subcategoriesare shown in the following tables:

ACUTE AQUATIC TOXICITY, ACUTE MAMMALIAN TOXICITY, CARCINOGENICITY, ANDMUTAGENICITY 3 = Extremely Hazardous or Known to Cause Harm 2 =Moderately Hazardous or Reasonably Anticipated to Cause Harm 1 =Possibly Hazardous or Suspected of Causing Harm 0 = Non-Hazardous or NotLikely to Cause Harm

BIOACCUMULATION 3 = High Potential to Bioaccumulate 2 = ModeratePotential to Bioaccumulate 1 = Possibly Hazardous or Suspected ofCausing Harm 0 = Non-Hazardous or Not Likely to Cause Harm

BIODEGRADATION 3 = Not Biodegradable, or produces degradation productsof concern 2 = Slightly Biodegradable 1 = Moderately Biodegradable 0 =Readily or Inherently Biodegradable, and does not produce degradationproducts of concern

EYE & SKIN CORROSIVE/IRRITANT 1 = At Minimum, Possibly Hazardous orCauses Irreversible Effects 0 = Non-Hazardous or Causes ReversibleEffects

REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY 3 = At Minimum, PossiblyHazardous or Harmful Effects Observed 0 = Non-Hazardous or No AdverseEffects Observed

EXPLOSIVE 3 = GHS Division 1.1 or US DOT Division 1.1 2 = GHS Division1.2 or US DOT Division 1.2 or 1.3 1 = GHS Division 1.3 or 1.4 or US DOTDivision 1.4 or 1.5 0 = GHS Division 1.5 or 1.6 or US DOT Division 1.6

FLAMMABILITY 3 = Flash point <23° C. and initial boiling point ≤35° C. 2= Flash point <23° C. and initial boiling point >35° C. 1 = Flash point≥23° C. and ≤60° C. 0 = Flash point >60° C.

Within each of the chemical hazard categories, a score is assigned toeach endpoint, based on the severity of potential harm. A score can becalculated, e.g., by summing the scores for each hazard category foreach substance or constituent to calculate a total score. The scores maybe weighted based on percent composition (by mass) and summed for eachcomponent and hazard category in the product. An exemplary scoringsystem, which is shown in FIG. 8, provides possible scores ranging fromzero to 3400. A normalized, relative total score, e.g., ranging from 0to 100, is also calculated. The normalized score may be calculated byscaling a total score of a substance, product or system to a selectedrange. The normalized score is calculated, for example, by weighting thescore for each substance of a product (or each substance and/or productof a fluid system) based on the proportion of the substance, e.g., thepercentage by mass or volume. For example, a normalized score of zerorepresents the lowest level of hazard and 100 represents the highestlevel of hazard.

For purposes of data quality and reliability, every effort should bemade to obtain a complete as possible product composition, whichcomprises all known or intentionally added chemical substances in theproduct being evaluated. Notwithstanding, instances may occur whereinthis level of formula detail may not be available. The chemical hazardevaluation is then performed with the best available information. In oneembodiment, for purposes of formula quality and reliability, formulacomposition reported on MSD(S)s are appropriate only in instanceswherein all other efforts to obtain complete product composition(including but not limited to Non-Disclosure or ConfidentialityAgreements) have been exhausted.

The data used to generate scores may be based either on individualsubstances of a product or the product blend as a whole, depending uponavailable information. If data for an entire mixture are available, thisdata may be used for ranking. When mixture data are used, documentationshould be provided in the scoring worksheet with a footnote to theapplicable end point(s).

In the event that only ranges are available for product percentcomposition, in one embodiment, the maximum percent values for eachconstituent substance are added, and 100 is divided by the total. Thiscalculates a multiplying factor to be applied to the maximum percentagenumbers for each of the components. This will allow a conservativenumber to be used within a 100% constituent framework. For example:

Mini- Maxi- mum mum % range % range Adjustment Adjusted % Componentvalue value Factor composition value A 20% 40% (100/170) = 0.59 (40 *0.59) = 23.6% B 30% 60% (100/170) = 0.59 (60 * 0.59) = 35.4% C 50% 70%(100/170) = 0.59 (70 * 0.59) = 41.3% Total 100% 170% 100% Percentages

When reliable, relevant and adequate data are not available (i.e. a datagap) to assign a score to a given end point, the highest conservativescore (e.g., 3) is assigned to the endpoint. The data gap process isdescribed below. For example, for data gaps in reproductive toxicity(normally scored as 0 or 3), a score of 3 should be used. For data gapsin eye and skin corrosive/irritant (normally scored as 0 or 1) a scoreof 1 should be used. If multiple study results are available thenprofessional judgment or the weight of evidence approach must beconsidered to determine which values to use for scoring.

The categories and criteria may be based on a single regulatorystandard, or be a mixture of categories and criteria from multiplestandards. In addition, regulatory standards used in this assessment canbe customized as needed to improve efficiency of the assessment.

In one embodiment, categories of GHS are selected for assessment thathave applicability to the energy industry. Retaining all hazardcategories from the GHS would result in unnecessary complexity withoutsignificant improvement in the system to identify hazards intrinsic tooilfield chemicals. For example, hazard categories such as aspirationhazard, respiratory or skin sensitization, self-heating substances andsubstances that emit flammable gases due to contact with water areexcluded from the hazard assessment.

Some hazard categories could be combined to improve efficiency of theassessment process without compromising the assessment. For example, GHSdivides oxidizing substances into three categories (solids, liquids andgases), where the present assessment identifies only one category(oxidizing substances).

In addition to the modification of the GHS standard, the assessment mayincorporate other sources whose approach follows the spirit of GHS, butprovides assessment categories and/or tools more in line with oilfieldapplications. For example, the criteria for oxidizers in the currentassessment are based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)400/430 list, and the criteria for metal corrosive substances includethe US Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazard Class 8, Packing GroupsI, II, and III (NFPA 400, NFPA 430 and USDOT, 49 CFR 173.137) Thefollowing tables show examples of such categories:

TABLE 12 OXIDIZER 3 = NFPA 400/430, Class 3 or 4 2 = NFPA 400/430, Class2 1 = NFPA 400/430, Class 1 0 = Not listed in NFPA 400/430

TABLE 13 METAL CORROSIVE 3 = Corrosion rate on either steel or aluminumgreater than 6.25 mpy at a test temperature of 55° C., or US DOT Class8, Packing Group I, II, or III 0 = Corrosion rate on either steel oraluminum less than or equal to 6.25 mpy at a test temperature of 55° C.,or US DOT Class 8, unregulated.

Selecting key hazard classes and customizing these classes and criteriafor oilfield application results in an efficient and thorough assessmentof oilfield related chemical products.

FIGS. 9-11 show portions of a workbook, e.g., spreadsheets, thatillustrate exemplary methods of determining the Chemical HazardEvaluation criteria measurement endpoints and assigning scores to eachcriterion. These portions may be part of an output provided to a user,e.g., along with the scoring spreadsheet shown in FIG. 8.

Referring to FIG. 9, the Acute Aquatic Toxicity, Bioaccumulation andBiodegradation scores are assigned, based on available data. Forexample, Acute toxicity is determined using either a fish 96 hr. LC50, acrustacea 48 hr. LC50, or algal species 72 or 96 hr. EC50 for growthinhibition. When reviewing these data, it is preferred that such data isclearly referenced to a standard test method (i.e. OECD, ISO, ASTM,etc.). For data from non-standard methods, test conditions should beclearly and completely stated. When more than one acceptable toxicityvalue is available from either the same or a different trophic level,the most conservative (lowest) value may be used. The following criteriaare used to assign a score based on acute toxicity data: LC50 orEC50≥100 ppm are scored as 0; LC50 or EC50>10 ppm and ≤100 ppm arescored as 1; LC50 or EC50>1 ppm and <10 ppm are scored as 2; and LC50 orEC50≤1 ppm are scored as 3.

The potential for bioaccumulation is assessed, in one embodiment, usinga bioconcentration factor (BCF). Experimentally derived BCF values infish are ultimately preferred and will override estimated or modeled BCFvalues. If BCF data are unavailable for fish, data from other speciessuch as mussels, oysters and other mollusks can be used. In the absenceof BCF data, studies with bioaccumulation (BAF) data can be used.Octanol/water partition coefficient data (log Pow or log Kow) may beused as an indication of bioaccumulation in the absence of BCF data.Chemical substances with a molecular weight greater than 700 g/mol maybe presumed not to pass through cell membranes, are therefore notconsidered to bioaccumulate, and may be assigned the lowest score (e.g.1). Using partition coefficient data to assess bioaccumulation forchemical substances which have surface active properties (e.g.surfactants) is not appropriate and, in the absence of BCF data, suchsubstances should be assigned the highest conservative score (e.g. 3).

The following criteria are used to assign scores, based on either BCF orlog (Kow) data: BCF values <1000 or log(Kow) values ≤4.0 and molecularweight >700 g/mol are scored as 0; BCF values <2000 and ≥1000 are scoredas 1; BCF values <5000 and ≥2000 or log(Kow) values ≥4.0 and molecularweight ≤700 are scored as 2; and BCF values ≥5000 are scored as 3.

Biodegradation is a key parameter for estimating the risk of long-termadverse effects on biota. Ready biodegradation tests are conducted underaerobic conditions, in which a high concentration of the test substance(typically ranging from 2 to 100 mg/L) is used and biodegradation ismeasured by non-specific parameters like Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC),Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and CO2 production. For freshwatertests, domestic sewage, activated sludge, or secondary effluent is thetypical source of microorganisms (inoculum). For seawater tests, avariety of indigenous marine microorganisms comprises the inoculum.Quantitative data from the following protocols are acceptable for use inscoring this endpoint: OECD 306, OECD 301 A-F, OECD 302 A-C, or BODStest. Note that data from OECD 306 tests, if available, are preferredover data from other biodegradability tests. Biodegradation scores areassigned based on the following: Biodegradation values ≥60%, and if thesubstance does not produce degradation products of concern, are scoredas 0; Biodegradation values <59% and ≥40% are scored as 1;Biodegradation values <39% and ≥20% are scored as 2; and Biodegradationvalues ≤19%, or if the substance produces degradation products ofconcern are scored as 3.

Additionally, substances described as “readily biodegradable,” arescored as 0. Substances described as “not subject to further degradationin the environment,” “persistent” or “not readily biodegradable” shouldbe scored as 3. Biodegradation tests are not applicable to inorganicsubstances and should be scored as a 0.

FIGS. 10A and 10B illustrate a worksheet that provides criteria forscoring Toxicity of a chemical substance. Toxicity is scored based onacute toxicity values for the substance. The toxicity score, in oneexample, is based on the three exposure routes identified by GHS, i.e.,oral, dermal and inhalation. Inhalation studies using gas, vapor, anddust/mist use different threshold ranges for scoring; it is thereforeimportant to determine the physical properties of the substance used foran inhalation study. If only a single acute toxicology endpoint isavailable, the overall scoring is based on that single data point. Ifdata are available for more than one exposure route, each should bescored separately and the average taken as the overall score. Thescoring can be weighted based on the number of exposure routes as shownin FIG. 10B.

Carcinogenicity may be scored based on various authoritative agencydeterminations. FIG. 10 shows exemplary substance categorizations foragencies including CLP, IARC, NTP, or EPA, and scores that should beassigned based on categorization. Substances not categorized by theseagencies should be scored as 0. In addition, since the assessment isdesigned to be an assessment of a substance's intrinsic hazards,carcinogens should be scored regardless of whether the designation islimited to a single route of exposure.

Genetic toxicity (mutagenicity) is scored based on the followingcriteria: Negative results in all mammalian in-vitro or in-vivo tests,or human epidemiological studies, or Ames tests, should be scored as 0;Positive result in all in-vitro somatic cell tests or weight of evidenceif more than one Ames test result is reported, should be scored as 1;Evidence for genetic toxicity in mammalian germ cells should be scoredas 2; and Evidence of genotoxicity in human epidemiological studiesshould be scored as 3.

If quantitative positive results of tests for developmental andreproductive toxicity are provided, the substance should be scored as 3.If no information is available for reproductive toxicity, this data-gapshould be scored conservatively as 3. If the available data shows nohazard, then the substance should be scored as 0.

If the results of skin corrosivity, skin irritation, or eye irritationstudies are available, categories can be established for assignment ofan appropriate corrosivity/irritation score. Such categories are shownin FIG. 10B under the heading “Skin and Eye Irritation Effects:Quantitative Descriptions.” However, if information regarding irritationand skin corrosivity are provided as descriptive phrases, the guidelinesprovided under the heading “Skin and Eye Irritation Effects:Quantitative Descriptions” in FIG. 10B, which are based on the HazardMaterials Identification System (HMIS), should be consulted for scoring.In other examples, if the MSDS states that a chemical is an “irritant,”it should be given a score of 1.

If the data provided in the MSDS are sufficient in describing thecorrosive or irritating properties of a product or substance, the MSDSdescription may be used for scoring. An example of a sufficientdescription would be “substance causes burns to skin and eyes” or“substance is moderately irritating.” However, if the description ofirritant hazards provided is unclear or indicates that the product “can”or “may” cause irritation, this is to be considered a data gap. In thiscase, database searches should be conducted to find study results tomore accurately indicate the irritation hazards of individualsubstances.

Professional judgment should be used to determine whether the irritanthazard description provided in the MSDS is applicable to the entireproduct or to the hazardous substances alone. If the MSDS providesdefinitive effects or study results for mixture data, this informationcan be used for scoring the entire product. When mixture data are used,one score should be applied to each substance, including non-hazardoussubstances of the mixture. If the hazard description in the MSDS doesnot apply to the entire product, each substance should be scoredseparately.

Referring to FIG. 11, physical hazards can be evaluated and/or scoredbased on a number of categories. For example, four physical hazardcategories (explosive, flammable, corrosive, and oxidizer) arerepresentative of US Department of Transportation (US DOT) hazardclasses that should, by law, be designated on the MSDS. Therefore, if achemical is not specified as explosive, flammable, oxidizing, orcorrosive on an MSDS, it should be scored as zero.

For explosive category scoring, the following criteria may be used forscoring:

Possible Scores 0 1 2 3 GHS Divisions 1.4, 1.5, Division 1.3- Division1.2- Division 1.1- Classification or 1.6- Combustion of Substances,Substances, mixtures Substances, substances, mixtures mixtures, andarticles and articles which mixtures, and and articles that which have afire have as mass articles which gives rise to hazard and either aexplosion hazard pose no considerable radiant minor blast and/orsignificant hazard. heat or which burn projection hazard, but one afteranother not a mass explosion producing minor blast hazard. and/orprojection effects. USDOT Division 1.6- Division 1.4- Division 1.2-Division 1.1- Classification Extremely Explosives with a Explosives witha Explosives with a insensitive major fire hazard or blast/projectionmass explosion explosives Division 1.5-Blasting hazard or hazard agents.Division 1.3- Explosives with a minor blast hazard IMDG Division 1.5 orDivision 1.3 or Dvision 1.2 Division 1.1 Classification Division 1.6Division 1.4

The following flammability criteria, based on the GHS system, can beused to score flammable products: flash point >60° C. (140° F.) and ≤93°C. (199.4° F.), should be scored as 0; flash point ≥23° C. (73.4° F.)and ≤60° C. (140° F.), should be scored as 1; flash point ≤23° C. (73.4°F.) and initial boiling point >35° C. (95° F.), should be scored as 2;and flash point <23° C. (73.4° F.) and initial boiling point ≤35° C.(95° F.), should be scored as 3.

The following criteria, based on the GHS system, can be used to scorecorrosive products: Score as 0 if the corrosion rate on either steel oraluminum surfaces <6.25 mm per year (MPY) at a test temperature of 55°C. (131° F.), or MSDS indicates product is US DOT Class 8, unregulated.Score as 3 if the corrosion rate on either steel or aluminum surfaces≥6.25 mm per year (MPY) at a test temperature of 55° C. (131° F.), orMSDS indicates product is USDOT Class 8, Packing Group I, II, or III.

In the seventh stage 57, the assessment results from each chemicalsubstance are compiled or combined, and provided as an output describingthe overall assessment. Accordingly, the assessment results may includeany combination of qualitative, quantitative and descriptive informationfor relative comparison of chemical products.

This report may include one or more numbers, scores, qualitativedescriptions, and/or descriptions of the assessment process. Forexample, the assessment results can be presented in a workbook formatincluding one or more of the worksheets illustrated in FIGS. 4-11. Inanother example, the assessment results are output (e.g., displayed,printed, etc.) as a report that summarizes each assessment component andprovides the results of each component. The report may also summarizeand presents the results for a chemical product (comprising acombination of chemical components).

The report may include assessment results for a single chemicalsubstance or multiple chemical substances. In one embodiment, the methodincludes evaluating potential hazards for one or more individualchemical substances or constituents, a chemical product includingmultiple constituents, and/or a material or fluid system includingmultiple chemical products. For example, as shown in FIGS. 5, 7 and 8,the report includes individual assessments for each of a plurality ofsubstances or constituents of a chemical product or fluid/materialsystem. Quantitative scores or other results can be accumulated orotherwise combined to provide a combined score for the product or systembased on the individual chemical substance scores. The report maydisplay or otherwise indicate the relative impact score, number or levelfor each of the substances, products and fluid/material systems.

An exemplary report includes a Highly Discouraged Substances Listsection that describes the assessment, and indicates whether thechemical product was found in the Highly Discouraged Substances List. Ifthe chemical product was found, the report may include recommendationsfor replacement. An OSPAR Pre-screen section indicates the result of thePre-Screen Prediction. A Regulatory Impact Assessment section summarizesthe assessment and provides information regarding the potentialregulatory impact, e.g., a number and/or list of regulations applicableto the product. A Chemical Hazard Evaluation section provides results ofthe hazard assessment, may discuss applicable criteria, and may providea hazard assessment score.

In one embodiment, the various assessments and methods described aboveinclude a process for selecting data and data sources and evaluating thequality of such data and data sources. The accuracy of a hazardevaluation for a product is highly dependent on the reliability of datasources. It is important then, to seek out ‘definitive’ sources, forexample, those with data that may be used for regulatory decisionmaking, or sources that also provide study details and metadata.Preferred data is relevant, reliable and sufficient for quantitativepurposes. Using reliable data sources increases the likelihood that highquality data will be used to perform chemical assessment.

For example, data from studies conducted under Good Laboratory Practices(GLP) are strongly preferred over non-GLP data. Similarly, data fromstandardized study protocols (e.g., OECD and USEPA) are preferred overdata from tests conducted using non-standard protocols. Finally,Klimisch categories that are routinely assigned to environmental andhuman health toxicity studies define levels of reliability. For example,in cases where Klimisch scores are reported, only data with Klimischscores of 1 and 2, i.e., “used without restriction” and “used withrestriction” respectively, are sufficient for evaluation.

When encountering multiple and differing data values for a single hazardcategory or endpoint, it may be necessary to base the assessment on apreponderance of available data, combined with experience andprofessional judgment. The following are exemplary source categories:

1. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Database of Information on REACHRegistered Substances

This database contains over 25,000 dossiers on over 4,000 uniquesubstances, and each study contains information that establishes whetherdata is relevant, reliable, and sufficient for quantitative assessment.This includes study Klimisch scores, GLP status, comparison of the studyprotocol to established methods, and study details such as number andspecies of test organisms used, test substance administration andexposure duration, observations, results and discussion.

2. Authoritative Literature and Database Compilations

Several sources make data available, only after it has undergone one ormore stages of peer review, by a committee of experienced andspecialized scientists. For example, the US National Library of MedicineTOXNET database, the USEPA High Production Volume Program reports, USEPAPesticide Registration Eligibility Decisions (REDs), Australian NationalIndustrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS)reports, European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety(SCCS) opinions, and others were originally published to supportregulatory decisions.

3. (Material) Safety Data Sheets

These documents may be used as a data source to address product-levelqualities such as physical hazard data and regulatory flags as well assupplier-identified hazards. (M)SDS data, subject to quality on acase-by-case basis, may be useful where hazard and toxicity informationis unavailable from a more reliable source, or to corroborate oridentify inconsistencies in data obtained from other sources.

4. Data from Read-Across Substances and Mathematical Modeling

Briefly, estimations of toxicity based on QSARs rely on theidentification of relationship between chemical structures andbiological activity; chemicals with similar structural attributes areinferred to possess similar toxicity. Since qualitative read-acrossestimations and QSAR models are considered less reliable sources ofdata, these should be used when all other sources have been exhausted.Data development and interpretation from these sources requiresexperience and prudent exercise of professional judgment. Some widelyused QSAR models include USEPA's EPISuite, Analog IdentificationMethodology, Interspecies Correlation Estimate, and the OECD QSARToolbox.

When all available data are neither relevant nor reliable, norsufficient for quantitative assessment, or where data is completelylacking, a data gap is noted in the evaluation. The most conservativeand protective score possible (i.e., the worst score or scorerepresenting the highest hazard level) is assigned to the endpoint untilmore definitive data can be obtained.

FIG. 12 illustrates an embodiment of a method 60 for evaluating andusing data sources for the chemical assessment described above. In thefirst block 61, a data gap is identified for a chemical substance thatis a constituent of a product. In block 62, the proportion of theproduct is identified. If the substance is, e.g., <1% of the totalproduct composition and includes either carcinogens, mutagens orreproductive toxins present at ≤0.1% (block 63), it may be assigned themost conservative score, e.g., scored as 3 (block 64). At theseconcentrations, there is likely no impact to the total hazard score.

For substances with data gaps at higher concentrations, input anddiscussion from other relevant stakeholders may be consulted at block 65to determine whether further testing should be performed. This inputshould consider, among other things, product market potential, impact ofthe respective substance on overall product performance, and potentialcosts for additional testing and research. Based on this input, adecision is made whether to proceed with additional testing (block 66)and/or modeling (block 67). If additional work is agreed to, thesubstance will be scored a 3, until the additional data are madeavailable. If a decision is made to not pursue additional work, therespective substance will be scored a 3.

FIGS. 13-15 illustrate examples of chemical assessment results generatedusing the systems and methods described herein. A first group ofchemicals (Group 1) were selected and assessed. Group 1 includes aldrin(Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) No. 309-00-2), benzene (CAS No.71-43-2), benzo[a]pyrene (50-32-8), dibutylphthalate (84-74-2), andNumber 2 Diesel (68476-34-6). A second group of chemicals (Group 2),which are widely used in oilfield or energy industry applications, werealso assessed. Group 2 includes acetic acid (64-17-7), choline chloride(67-48-1), citric acid (77-92-9), ethylene glycol (107-21-1) andglutaraldehyde (111-30-8).

FIG. 13 shows the results of the assessment of Group 1. As shown, fourof five of the substances evaluated would “Fail” the Pre-ScreenPrediction, and all have been assigned at least one Harmonized CLPH-phrase (e.g., may cause genetic defects or cancer). In addition, thesesubstances are highly regulated; the range of regulatory hits rangedfrom 7 to 12. The total assessment hazard score (CEPR score) ranged from27 to 56 out of 100.

The results of Group 2, shown in FIG. 14, were much more favorable. Allof the substances would “Pass” the Pre-Screen Prediction and none of thesubstances have been assigned a Harmonized CLP H-phrase. In addition,the substances are not highly regulated. The assessment scores rangedfrom zero to 21. FIG. 15 shows a comparison of the regulatory count andhazard score of all of the evaluated substances.

One or more aspects of the present invention can be included in anarticle of manufacture (e.g., one or more computer program products)having, for instance, computer usable media. The media has therein, forinstance, computer readable instructions, program code means or logic(e.g., code, commands, etc.) to provide and facilitate the capabilitiesof the present invention. The article of manufacture can be included asa part of a computer system or provided separately. These instructionsmay provide for equipment operation, control, data collection andanalysis and other functions deemed relevant by a system designer,owner, user or other such personnel, in addition to the functionsdescribed in this disclosure.

One example of an article of manufacture or a computer program productfor executing the methods described is a processing device or systemsuch as the system 30, the processing unit 32 and/or the host 34. Acomputer program product includes, for instance, one or more computerusable media to store computer readable program code means or logicthereon to provide and facilitate one or more aspects of the methods andsystems described herein. The medium can be an electronic, magnetic,optical, electromagnetic, infrared or semiconductor system (or apparatusor device) or a propagation medium. Example of a computer readablemedium include a semiconductor or solid state memory, magnetic tape, aremovable computer diskette, a random access memory (RAM), a read-onlymemory (ROM), a rigid magnetic disk and an optical disk. Examples ofoptical disks include compact disk-read only memory (CD-ROM), compactdisk-read/write (CD-R/W) and DVD.

One skilled in the art will recognize that the various components ortechnologies may provide certain necessary or beneficial functionalityor features. Accordingly, these functions and features as may be neededin support of the appended claims and variations thereof, are recognizedas being inherently included as a part of the teachings herein and apart of the invention disclosed.

While the invention has been described with reference to exemplaryembodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art thatvarious changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted forelements thereof without departing from the scope of the invention. Inaddition, many modifications will be appreciated by those skilled in theart to adapt a particular instrument, situation or material to theteachings of the invention without departing from the essential scopethereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited tothe particular embodiment disclosed as the best mode contemplated forcarrying out this invention, but that the invention will include allembodiments falling within the scope of the appended claims.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method of assessing chemical products,the method comprising: receiving input data including identification ofa chemical substance at a processing device; evaluating a regulatoryimpact of the chemical substance based on at least one of globalregulation data, regional regulation data and jurisdiction-specificregulation data, and outputting a regulatory impact assessment, theregulatory impact assessment including a regulatory impact score basedon a number of applicable regulations that apply to the chemicalsubstance, the regulatory impact score including a numerical valueindicative of the number of applicable regulations; evaluating potentialhazards posed by the chemical substance based on available data relatedto characteristics of the chemical substance by comparing thecharacteristics to a plurality of criteria including environmentalcriteria, toxicity criteria related to effects on human health, andphysical criteria related to hazards encountered during materialtransportation and handling, and outputting a chemical hazardassessment, wherein evaluating the potential hazards includes comparingthe characteristics of the chemical substance to selected criteriaspecified by a pre-existing regulatory chemical evaluation standard forevaluating whether the chemical substance would be accepted for use in aproduct, and predicting whether the chemical substance would meet thechemical evaluation standard; and generating a chemical assessmentreport indicating potential impact due to use of the chemical substance,the chemical assessment report indicating chemical assessment resultsthat include the regulatory impact assessment, the regulatory impactscore and the chemical hazard assessment, the chemical assessment reportincluding a regulatory impact score, the regulatory impact score basedon evaluating the regulatory impact and indicating a level of theregulatory impact.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the chemicalsubstance is at least a constituent of a chemical product configured foruse in an energy industry application.
 3. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising comparing the chemical substance to a list of highlydiscouraged substances, and including the result of the comparing in thechemical assessment report.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein thechemical evaluation standard is the Oslo-Paris Convention (OSPAR)Harmonized Mandatory Control Scheme (HMCS) Pre-screening scheme, andperforming the pre-screen prediction includes at least one of predictingand estimating whether the chemical substance would pass thePre-screening scheme by comparing the characteristics to a plurality ofcriteria used by the OSPAR Pre-screening scheme.
 5. The method of claim1, wherein evaluating the regulatory impact includes comparing thechemical substance to substances identified by a plurality of regulatorybodies as requiring regulation, determining the number of applicableregulations based on the comparing, and producing the regulatory impactscore based on the number of applicable regulations.
 6. The method ofclaim 1, wherein evaluating potential hazards includes generating anormalized score based on the chemical hazard assessment.
 7. The methodof claim 1, wherein evaluating potential hazards includes generatingscores based on comparison of the characteristics to each of a pluralityof criteria, and generating a cumulative chemical hazard score based onthe scores.
 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing thechemical assessment results in a data storage location.
 9. The method ofclaim 8, wherein the chemical substance includes a plurality of chemicalconstituents, and generating the chemical assessment report includesretrieving the stored chemical assessment results for at least one ofthe plurality of chemical constituents, and incorporating the storedchemical assessment results into the chemical assessment report.
 10. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the chemical substance is a plurality ofchemical substances, the evaluating potential hazards includesevaluating potential hazards of each of the plurality of chemicalsubstances, and the evaluating potential hazards includes at least oneof: evaluating potential hazards of a chemical product, the chemicalproduct including the plurality of chemical substances; and evaluatingpotential hazards of a fluid system, the fluid system including theplurality of chemical products.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein thechemical assessment report indicates a hazard level for at least one ofthe chemical substance, the chemical product and the fluid system.
 12. Asystem for assessing chemical products, the system comprising: a datastorage and retrieval device configured to at least one of receive andstore source data, the source data including available data related tocharacteristics of chemical substances and regulatory data including atleast one of global regulation data, regional regulation data andjurisdiction-specific regulation data; a processing devicecommunicatively coupled to the data storage and retrieving device, theprocessing unit including an input component configured to receive inputdata including identification of a chemical substance, the processingdevice configured to perform: evaluating a regulatory impact of thechemical substance based on the regulatory data, and outputting aregulatory impact assessment, the regulatory impact assessment includinga regulatory impact score based on a number of applicable regulationsthat apply to the chemical substance, the regulatory impact scoreincluding a numerical value indicative of the number of applicableregulations; evaluating potential hazards posed by the chemicalsubstance based on the available data by comparing the characteristicsto a plurality of criteria including environmental criteria, toxicitycriteria related to effects on human health, and physical criteriarelated to hazards encountered during material transportation andhandling, and outputting a chemical hazard assessment, whereinevaluating the potential hazards includes comparing the characteristicsof the chemical substance to selected criteria specified by apre-existing regulatory chemical evaluation standard for evaluatingwhether the chemical substance would be accepted for use in a product,and predicting whether the chemical substance would meet the chemicalevaluation standard; and generating a chemical assessment reportindicating potential impact due to use of the chemical substance, thechemical assessment report indicating chemical assessment results thatinclude the regulatory impact assessment, the regulatory impact scoreand the chemical hazard assessment, the chemical assessment reportincluding a regulatory impact score, the regulatory impact score basedon evaluating the regulatory impact and indicating a level of theregulatory impact.
 13. The system of claim 12, wherein the processingunit is configured to perform comparing the chemical substance to a listof highly discouraged substances, and including the result of thecomparing in the chemical assessment report.
 14. The system of claim 12,wherein the chemical evaluation standard is the Oslo-Paris Convention(OSPAR) Harmonized Mandatory Control Scheme Pre-screening scheme, andthe prediction includes at least one of predicting and estimatingwhether the chemical substance would pass the pre-screening scheme bycomparing the characteristics to a plurality of criteria used by theOSPAR pre-screening process.
 15. The system of claim 12, whereinevaluating the regulatory impact includes comparing the chemicalsubstance to substances identified by a plurality of regulatory bodiesas requiring regulation, and producing the number of applicableregulations, and a list of applicable regulations pertaining to thechemical substance.
 16. The system of claim 12, wherein the chemicalsubstance is at least one of a chemical product and a fluid systemincluding a plurality of chemical constituents, and evaluating potentialhazards includes generating a score for each of the plurality ofconstituents, weighting each of the scores based on a proportion of acorresponding constituent in the chemical substance, and combining theweighted scores to generate a combined score for the chemical hazardassessment.
 17. The system of claim 12, wherein the processing unit isconfigured to store the chemical assessment results in a data storagelocation.
 18. The system of claim 17, wherein the chemical substanceincludes a plurality of chemical constituents, and generating thechemical assessment report includes retrieving the stored chemicalassessment results for at least one of the plurality of chemicalconstituents, and incorporating the stored chemical assessment resultsinto the chemical assessment report.